Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
spending. watch what happens and we lose a lot of pentagon jobs. a lot of people out of work. stop by and stores closed, supporting organizations and some contractors are out of work. who gets blamed, president or republicans in congress? >> in the end i think the president. we americans under this habit of thinking i think the presidents have too much -- deserve too much for a good economy and too much blame for a bad economy. what a president does is pretty important but not as important as sometimes other factors. chris: if we have a shutdown or second recession or something like it, double dip, who gets hurt? >> republicans believe your theory, michael, it's the president. the buck stops with him. fundamentally -- >> chris: he's the one scared of this sequester more than anybody it seems. >> but at the same time they also know this is a republican party with the 24% approval rating going against a president with the 50-something percent approval rating. when it's the battle of the bully pulpit versus people with a 24% approval rating, bully pulpit can be very effective. chris:
is virginia home to the pentagon, the world's largest u.s. navy base, but a hub for major defense contractors such as aircraft builders. so the impact over 200,000 jobs, second only to california. you can't want this automatic spending cut to go forward. >> you know, clearly this is not, david, the best way to go about trying to chroontrol spending. and we have demonstrated in the house two separate occasions -- one of the bills we put across the floor and passed i was the sponsor of for that reason. these are indiscriminate cuts. we can do a lot better. what i hope to be able to hear from the president in the state of the union is he wants to join us in trying to effect much smarter cuts in spending. >> but that's what he's saying. >> we don't have to have the impact that you just described. >> why not work with him on short-term measure which he is talking about to delay this, find a different way to go about some of the cuts? >> the problem is, david, every time you turn around the answer is to raise taxes. and, you know, he just got his tax hike on the wealthy. and you can't in this town
to run the pentagon. former republican senator and decorated vietnam combat veteran, chuck hagel, already under fire before today. he got a rough treatment at today's hearing. kelly o'donnell is on the hill tonight with details. kelly, good evening. >> reporter: good evening, brian. tough questions were expected, but the real surprise today came in how chuck hagel handled the all-day scrutiny. at times appearing unprepared or off his game. and that's after hagel had dozens of personal meetings with senators, trying to win their support to become the next secretary of defense. >> right up the stairs, sir. >> reporter: chuck hagel would break new ground as the first enlisted man, first vietnam veteran, to run the pentagon. and first cabinet nominee to get the super pac treatment. tv ads against his confirmation. >> chuck hagel is not a responsible option. >> reporter: but it was hagel's former colleagues and even friends who waged a coordinated attack today on hagel's judgment. john mccain seized on hagel's vocal opposition to the surge of troops in iraq in 2007. >> the question, senator ha
live with those cutbacks to the pentagon. so isn't there a spending problem here that must be addressed? >> absolutely. and i believe as chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and in the senate that we can save money, cut waste in the pentagon, and not compromise our national security. but to do this in such a haphazard way over the remaining six or seven months is going to be unfair to the military and our families. think about this for a second. cutting back on psychological counseling for the members of the military and their family during the remainder of this year when we have this grievous problem of suicides in the military and readjustment when they come home from battle. we can't do that. >> but isn't there always a reason to spend the money in washington? >> no. >> can't you always find a reason not to cut? isn't this the republican argument that at least here, if worse comes to worse and the sequester happens, we'll at least get spending cuts. how else to force the president's hand? >> do we really want to base our spending cuts reducing medical research in ameri
to run the pentagon will have to wait at least another week for an up or down vote in the senate. it now appears chuck hagel will get the vote when senators return. two top republicans say they will stop efforts to stall his confirmation. that filibuster came a day after hagel was approved by the armed services committee on a party-line vote. one of his most vocal opponents says while he doesn't believe hagel is qualified, he won't hold up the process. >> i thought we had an agreement to wait a week so the remaining questions would be answered, but i understand the white house wanted a vote. they got a vote. we will have a vote when we get back. i'm confident that senator hagel will probably have the votes necessary to be confirmed as the secretary of defense. >> the gop it says blocked hagel's nomination in an effort to further examine his record and views on israel and iran. senate majority leader harry reid hopes to bring a final vote to the floor when congress goes back in session next monday. >>> residents in coastal new england are cleaning up after yet another blast of winter weat
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)